ALERT: Luntz's Conflict of Interest -- Contact PBS Today!
Email from David Brock, Tuesday, June 26, 2007.
Dear Friend:
Yesterday, I urged you to join me in asking PBS and the Tavis Smiley program to reconsider their decision to have Frank Luntz provide post-forum analysis of the Democratic presidential candidates -- today I am asking you once again to call or email PBS and Tavis Smiley.
Since my last email, Media Matters has learned that Luntz, a longtime Republican pollster and strategist, has worked on each of GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's three previous political campaigns -- a clear and serious conflict of interest PBS cannot ignore.
I sent a letter directly to PBS and the Tavis Smiley program detailing the reasons why Luntz is the wrong choice for this important job -- and your emails yesterday filled up the show's mailbox!
While we've made progress in making certain our voices are heard and the progressive blogosphere is getting a growing number of people to take action, Luntz is still scheduled to provide the post-forum analysis.
If we want PBS to reconsider its decision, we still have work to do.
I have pasted a copy of the letter I sent to PBS and the Tavis Smiley program below and updated the necessary contact information in the above contact box. If you haven't yet called or emailed, please do so today. The more voices they hear, the better our chances of getting Luntz replaced with a more appropriate person -- one without serious conflicts of interest -- who can provide objective analysis of the Democratic candidates.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
David Brock,
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
LETTER FROM DAVID TO PBS
Monday, June 25, 2007
Paula Kerger
President and CEO
Public Broadcasting Service
2100 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202Neal Kendall
Executive Producer
Tavis Smiley
4401 W. Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90027Dear Ms. Kerger and Mr. Kendall:
In keeping with the Public Broadcasting Service's long and distinguished history of journalistic integrity, we at Media Matters for America are writing to ask that you reconsider your network's decision to have Republican pollster Frank Luntz take part in coverage of PBS' June 28 Democratic presidential forum.
According to an April 4 PBS press release, Luntz will participate in coverage of the June 28 candidate forum, which will be televised live and moderated by PBS host Tavis Smiley. In fact, the release states that "[i]mmediate public feedback on the performance of the candidates will be conducted by noted pollster Frank Luntz, who will also appear on 'Tavis Smiley' on PBS the following evening to discuss his findings."
While we recognize the importance of analyzing the performance of the Democratic field, it is unconscionable that someone with Luntz's partisan history, open disdain for Democratic priorities and candidates, and record of reported reprimand and censure by his peers would be chosen by PBS for such an important role in a Democratic presidential primary forum.
- In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research formally reprimanded Luntz for refusing to release documentation in support of comments he made to the media regarding his polling work on the Republican Party's 1994 "Contract with America" campaign platform, according to a Salon.com article.
- Washington Post polling director Richard Morin reported that the National Council on Public Polls censured Luntz "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention."
- In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology.
- According to a January 29, 2007, article on The New Republic's website, Luntz "not only helped write Republican House member Newt Gingrich's Contract with America; he was also responsible for its presentation to the public." He also "advised Republicans trying to impeach Bill Clinton."
- Luntz's 2002 memo "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America" coached Republicans on new ways to talk about global warming and warned the party that the environment "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general -- and President Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable."
- A June 2004 memo by Luntz, "Communicating The Principles Of Prevention & Protection In The War On Terror," urged Republicans to use concepts such as "[i]t is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington" and "9/11 changed everything," which have been staples of Republican rhetoric ever since.
Additionally, Media Matters has documented several recent television appearances in which Luntz has spread conservative misinformation, smears of Democrats, and praise of Republicans.
- During a conversation about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) having access to military aircraft to fly between Washington, D.C., and her home district, Luntz stated on the February 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes that "it is not a security issue. [Pelosi] doesn't need a plane." In fact, Wilson Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, released a statement saying that he had "advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to [former] Speaker [J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001."
- On the March 2 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) treatment of community activist Saul Alinsky in her senior thesis at Wellesley College: "In the language she uses she holds him up almost like an icon. ... I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
- On the March 13 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz said: "We've been analyzing her [Clinton] over the past few weeks on your show. And she doesn't seem to pick up the fact that there's too much negativity. There's too much divisiveness." In the same program, while discussing the abortion rights views of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Luntz said: "This is someone who defines the phrase 'Says what he means, means what he says.' " But as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Giuliani has taken a number of inconsistent positions on different aspects of the abortion rights issue.
- On the June 14 edition of Hannity & Colmes, discussing the June 5 Republican presidential debate, Luntz did not correct co-host Sean Hannity's claim that he was "frustrated" by purported differences between the Democratic and Republican debates: "The Democrats don't get the questions on partial-birth abortion or asked if they've read the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE]. It seems like the Republicans are getting more scrutiny." In fact, during an April 26 debate, former Sen. John Edwards (NC) and Sen. Barack Obama (IL) faced a question on the abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, and at a June 3 debate, Edwards and Clinton were asked whether they regretted not reading the September 2002 NIE on the threat posed by Iraq. Clinton's response to the NIE question was specifically noted by Luntz on the June 4 edition of Hannity & Colmes -- but Luntz did not point out Hannity's mistake during his June 14 appearance.
- On the October 31, 2006, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Luntz said, "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a facelift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.' "
Again, we hope you will reconsider your decision to include Luntz in your debate coverage. With his well-documented Republican ties and reported reprimand and censure by his peers, it's clear that he cannot be trusted to provide objective analysis of Thursday's Democratic forum. If he must be a part of PBS' lineup, we would expect that your viewers will be informed of these facts on-air.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
David Brock,
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
I sent a letter to PBS. What else can we do?
Write one letter to PBS ? Maybe, but it's very late and I have written three e-mails: one to the PBS CEO, one to the PBS Ombudsman., and one to the parent organization. What th devil is PBS up to ? They know full well all about Luntz and once again assign him a post on a PBS election coverage program. Is PBS pandering to the Republicans in Congress to favor them at funding time ? Or do they have a death wish, considering that the vast majority on their faithful, viewers - - AND DONORS - - are well educated people who are keenly aware of cultural and politcal issues, and who know full well that Luntz is a notorious RNC media trickter ? Or is Karl Rove leading somebody at PBS around by the nose ?
Thank you again for the work you do. This is shameful and I cannot believe that PBS is not aware of Luntz's Republican ties. I remember when he was used on MSNBC for the last presidential debate and his ability to twist everything to his own right wing perspective.
Peggy Green
Lou. ky.
Bill O'Reilly was evidently not available.
Tom Liston
You guys-Media Matters- are amazing. So you want everybody to call PBS and get Luntz removed from PBS's Democratic Forum. Why because he's a Republican?
I don't see why that disqualifies him. The way I see it, the previous listed evidence of his unworthiness is all biased-based, i.e. because his a Republican; as is this call to arms to bombard PBS--because he's a Republican.
The above evidence is weak and sounds like childish sissified whining and it's unbecoming of grown adults...I read this stuff and I can't help hearing a snot-nose preschooler. I read the above and it seems to me Media Matters just doesn't like his opinion. That's it. You just don't like his point of view, but this agenda is hidden behind the mask of misinformation.
It seems to me Media Matters has a liberal Democratic agenda and this call to get Luntz removed is just another transparent act to serve that real intention, which has nothing to do with MISINFORMATION.
Luntz is smart, articulate and pretty accurate. The fact that he's a Republican gives this forum a shred of reality and credibility. Luntz is with the GOP, he's got no dog in this race. What do you want to do, stack the deck and load the dice? What do you want, to get a Democratic analyst who does have a dog in the race who WILL skew their analysis to favor his/her Democratic candidate of choice?
Tavis Smiley and PBS are smart and they've choosen Luntz for a reason. Stop whining because you're afraid of what he might say about your precious Democratic candidates. If these candidates are sharp and well-intentioned, why is Media Matters afraid of the potential criticism that may be directed at these Democratic candidates. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?
Jack
Waa! Waa! Waa! Cry me a river of big ole crocodile tears. How dare those nasty old republicans think they can intrude upon the sacred ground of the liberal enlightened.